SEPECAT Jaguar in IAF Service

vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Postby vina » 21 Jun 2006 10:17

George J wrote:Umm the same can be said about any USAF stuff, sure its been used in "wars and conflicts"..........against Bedouins, rag tag militia and tin pot dictators who have been pre-pulverzied. So its not really seen much if not any action..


Isrealis have used primarily American stuff with devastating effect against the non pre-pulverized, non rag tag militia .(I mean the Syrians) in Lebanon. But anyday I am willing to bet that American stuff works more reliably in a more diverse geographic and climatic conditions than the soviet stuff. Add their performance in the previous Arab Isreali wars where the Arab side was primarily equipped with Soviet weapons and the Isrealis had western weapons and the difference is just as stark as it was later in Lebanon

Soviet stuff works well in maybe frozen tundra like home climates and the more temperate climates of europe.Put them in hot desert or hot moist muggy tropical climates like in India and then you have problems.

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 21 Jun 2006 10:59

Harry wrote:Claims about the F-14D's IRST are just made by American nationalists.

Now for all this talk about "IIR" IRSTs, they can only image at very short ranges. If they zoom, the FoV is greatly reduced. At long ranges, the contacts are nothing more than blobs. With heat dissipiation into the atmosphere, it would only be effective against clear sky. I don't believe that the any of the latest IRSTs have any great range anyway.

Very true ...
IIRC, the advent of staring focal-plane two-colour (spectrum) IIR is to reject the flares and keep tracking the airframe.
IMO, the issue with IRSTs are more with tracking than with detection - and tracking requires accurate range resolution which is its main drawback. That's the reason they collimate a Laser ranging to take care of the range resolution. But LRs have extremely low range (around 3-8Km, max), thus reducing the effectivity of the whole IRST/LR system.
The current crop of IRSTs have very good detection (search) ranges though - for non-afterburing approaching targets, the range sometimes are claimed at around 30-40Kms. But ovbiously this info is more of a situational awareness info and weapon deployment will require more accurate range resolution data (provided by LRs).

Having said all that, PIRATE, QWIP tech and this and that being peddeled nowadays claims to have taken care of the ranging issue to quite an extent ...

The signal processing on the IRSTs have little in common with radar. While the RCs may coordinate them, they are not the main SP unit for the OLS-30. Even so, control of the IRST should really be an MC function.

Exactly ... and when on a airframe like the Jags (and upgraded 27s) a dedicated LRMTS is available, why not "use it" to supplement the IRST (like OLS-30) for AA roles too - yes sys int will be a nightmare, but then it also brings-in a huge AA self-defence advantage (lesser dependency on the escort). And all these will have to be co-ordinated by the MC, which incidentally is the centre-piece of the proposed upgrades anyway!!

vipin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 22
Joined: 09 Apr 2004 11:31
Location: california

Postby vipin » 21 Jun 2006 13:35

vina wrote:
George J wrote:Umm the same can be said about any USAF stuff, sure its been used in "wars and conflicts"..........against Bedouins, rag tag militia and tin pot dictators who have been pre-pulverzied. So its not really seen much if not any action..


Isrealis have used primarily American stuff with devastating effect against the non pre-pulverized, non rag tag militia .(I mean the Syrians) in Lebanon. But anyday I am willing to bet that American stuff works more reliably in a more diverse geographic and climatic conditions than the soviet stuff. Add their performance in the previous Arab Isreali wars where the Arab side was primarily equipped with Soviet weapons and the Isrealis had western weapons and the difference is just as stark as it was later in Lebanon

Soviet stuff works well in maybe frozen tundra like home climates and the more temperate climates of europe.Put them in hot desert or hot moist muggy tropical climates like in India and then you have problems.


Utter bull..... The american stuff in the hands of pakis couln't save them from the shame of loosing half their country. All the sabres, starfighters and pattons turned out to be useless junk infront of the mig-21's, t-55, Pt-76 and OSA class missile boats. American stuff works in the hands of americans or israelis because of the numbers. Arab armies were never well trained or lead. The pakis serving in syrian Af had absolutely no trouble handling the israeli Af did they?

Israelis don't blindly use american stuff, they modify it to suit their own requirements and develop what they need. Which is the same approach india used with MKI. Somehow I have no confidence in american planes or tanks, they always fail with the pakis irrespective of wether they are facing an equivalent russian or a older generation british model.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Jun 2006 13:47

er... and there's the slight matter of strategy, tactics, logistics, morale, training, leadership, initiative, esprit de corps... etc., etc.

George J

Postby George J » 21 Jun 2006 23:22

vina wrote:....Isrealis have used primarily American stuff with devastating effect against the non pre-pulverized, non rag tag militia .(I mean the Syrians) in Lebanon. But anyday I am willing to bet that American stuff works more reliably in a more diverse geographic and climatic conditions than the soviet stuff. .........


I didnt know that the Americans provided anything to Israel with IRST?!!! What did they have before the came up with EL/L-8273/4? We know that F-15K has IRST but does the 1994/5 circa F-15 I also have it? What did they have during all their previous conflicts?

Harry
BRFite
Posts: 365
Joined: 20 Jun 2000 11:31
Contact:

Postby Harry » 22 Jun 2006 02:15

maitya wrote: But LRs have extremely low range (around 3-8Km, max),


The lasers of LDPs like the ATFLIR are advertised with slant ranges in the area of 60 km. I don't know how effective they would be in A2A though?

maitya
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2001 12:31

Postby maitya » 22 Jun 2006 18:58

Harry wrote:
maitya wrote: But LRs have extremely low range (around 3-8Km, max),


The lasers of LDPs like the ATFLIR are advertised with slant ranges in the area of 60 km. I don't know how effective they would be in A2A though?

Hmmm ... the ranging in Laser is directly proportional to the Target size (just like a radar) - the bigger the target, the better chances of ranging to it (other factors being Target reflectivity, Target surface, Angle of Incidence, Weather conditions, Lighting conditions etc etc.)
So if the ranging is accurate enough for a "aircraft-sized" ground target at 60Kms, wonder why similar figures can't be achieved for AA targets ... :?:


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests